LCAP increased the ratio of CD25+ CD4+-cells (Treg)/CD25- CD4+-cells significantly after therapy;21 however, another report failed to detect a significant change in the CD25BrightCD4+/total CD4+ ratio.22 These authors showed that LCAP selectively removed CD14dullCD16+ monocytes, which preferentially produce tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which has also been demonstrated during the GMA procedure.23 According to this evidence, some of the immuno-suppressive effects of LCAP therapy may be associated with a modulation of circulating T cell subsets. On the other hand, we should focus on the platelet removal performance of LCAP since www.selleckchem.com/products/AZD8055.html platelet removal characteristics could

be a major difference between LCAP and GMA. LCAP removes approximately 35% of peripheral blood platelets, which adhere onto the surface Navitoclax clinical trial of polyester filter of Cellsorba.7 It is believed that circulating platelets are important cells not only in hemostasis, but also in a variety of inflammatory responses.24

An increase of the peripheral platelet count has been recognized as a common feature during the active phase of IBD.25 It has also been reported previously that higher platelet numbers correlate well with disease severity.26 According to this evidence, we have hypothesized that this significant platelet removal achieved during LCAP might have an active role in downregulating severe immunological reactions in patients with UC with an acute flare. We have also proved that activated platelets may have potential to predict clinical efficacy of LCAP in severe UC patients.27 Granulocyte/monocyte apheresis for

UC.  A milestone in the clinical history of GMA for UC was a report presenting the results from a multicenter trial of GMA for active UC patients.4 The results indicated that GMA was significantly more effective for relapsing UC patients compared with conventional h-PSL therapy (GMA vs h-PSL = 55% vs 40%, P < 0.05) In the same study, GMA was associated with fewer adverse events compared with h-PSL (< 0.001). Since then, several studies28–31 have reported very significant clinical efficacy in patients with UC following a course of Epothilone B (EPO906, Patupilone) GMA. The most recent evidence for this novel intervention is in a report by Sakuraba et al.11 that found both remission induction rate (71.2% vs 54.0%; P < 0.03), and the time to remission (14.9 days vs 28.1 days; P < 0.01) were significantly better in twice a week GMA sessions compared with the routine weekly GMA therapy. Thus, the clinical efficacy of GMA could be frequency dependent. In 2011, an Italian group reported the results of a multicenter trial,32 which enrolled 230 patients (UC 194/CD 36) from 24 Gastroenterology Units. Patients received five GMA sessions and a positive outcome at 3 months was achieved in 78% of UC patients (72% remission, 5.7% clinical response) and 61% of CD patients (55% remission, 6.5% clinical response).